Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Environment and Place Scrutiny Sub-Committee - Tuesday 17th December, 2024 6.45 pm

Venue: Room 1.02, Civic, Saxon Gate East, Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ

Contact: Roslyn Tidman  Email: democracy@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

1.

Welcome and Introductions

The Chair to welcome members of the Sub-Committee, officers, any external witnesses, and the public to the meeting and introduce committee members, officers and witnesses who are present.

Minutes:

The Chair welcomed all attendees and set out the procedure for the meeting.

2.

Apologies

To receive any apologies.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillor Andrew who was substituted by Councillor McLean.

3.

Disclosures of Interest

Councillors to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests, other registerable interests, or non-registerable interests (including other pecuniary interests) they may have in the business to be transacted, and officers to declare any interests they may have in any contract to be consider.

Minutes:

None received.

4.

Call-In of Delegated Decision - 26 November 2024, Parking and Permit Tariffs

The above decision was called-in by Councillors Muzammil and Geary on 2 December 2024, in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16 (c).

The Sub-Committee is requested to consider the reasons set out in the call-in request and, in accordance with the Council’s Constitution, either:

               refer the item back to the Cabinet member, setting out the nature of the Committee’s concerns;

               not refer the item back; or

               refer its views to the Council (if it believes the decision is contrary to the Council’s budget or policy framework).

Minutes:

The Chair advised that the Sub-Committee had been formed to consider the Call-In of the Delegated Decision of 26 November 2024 (Parking and Permit Tariffs).

Councillors Muzammil and Geary introduced the Call-In and made the following points:

a)             The increased charges would cause financial strain on small businesses and shoppers and would lead to declining footfall for surrounding shops.

b)            There was a petition signed by nearly 1,000 residents who were opposed to this decision.

c)             The main reason given for introducing this change was to encourage behaviour change to increase the use of public transport but there was concern expressed about this assumption as to whether the higher parking fees would actually incentivise public transport use.

d)            The increased charges would lead to shoppers going to other shopping areas rather than Central Milton Keynes.

e)            There had not been any consultation on the proposed changes.

f)              There was a disparity in the annual parking permit costs between central residents (£675) and those in areas that were adjacent to the central area (£25).

g)             The decision was flawed, short sighted and was not supported by residents.

h)            There was no way to measure the success or failure of this change.

i)               Not all of the money raised from this change would be spent on public transport so would make little difference and it was queried as to why this proposal was not included in the budget if it was not actually about improving public transport but balancing the budget and generating income.

The witness for the Call-In party highlighted the financial strain the increased parking fees would have on those on low incomes.

There were no points of clarification raised by the Cabinet member or the Sub-Committee.

In response to the Call-In reasons, Councillor Townsend noted that:

a)             She stood by the decision and indicated that the increase was minimal and necessary after nearly a decade without any changes.

b)            The increase applied only to the first two hours of parking it was not a doubling in parking charges. The most anyone would pay more for up to a whole day of parking would be 50p in a premium bay and £1 in a standard bay.

c)             There was support for this change from bus user groups and the bus partnership that it was fair and reasonable to make the cost of car travel more equitable to the cost of public transport.

d)            The Milton Keynes shopping center was thriving with a popular leisure and retail offer and there was minimal impact from overall parking costs.

The following point of clarification was raised by the Call-In party:

a)             It was queried as to how the cost of the residential permit was calculated and it was advised that this was the daily rate across the whole year.

The following points of clarification were raised by the Sub-Committee:

b)            It was queried as to how many shops had closed at the shopping centre in the last year and the Cabinet member advised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Reasons for Call-In pdf icon PDF 34 KB

The reasons for the Call-In are set out as submitted.

6.

Delegated Decision Report and Annexes pdf icon PDF 94 KB

The delegated decision report for Item 5, 26 November 2024, is set out in full (note that decisions in the report were agreed by the Cabinet member unchanged).

Additional documents:

7.

Further Information

Information or updates from any mediation undertaken will be circulated as appropriate.